There are only TWO tracks in the US that will accept Eric Ledford back with open arms--he'll be back here soon--I guarantee it. BALMORAL PARK and MAYWOOD PARK. With what this racing office lets slide (see BILLY FARMER), hell, they'll probably have an 'Eric Ledford returns toChicago day' and have a bobblehead giveaway for him.

The problem I have with Eric is that the time he WAS in Chicago, I thought he was BETTER than Tetrick (actually MUCH better). At some point, once he got really good and was putting Morgan and Magee to shame, he "seemed" to become FULL of himself. Almost like he could NOT give anybody the time of day anymore. This seemed to take less than a year after his arrival on the Chicago circuit. His Mom and Dad probably should take some of the credit for this also, BUT they are probably like that also.

He isn't getting drives because the Meadowlands has basically "threatened" the trainers so they don't use him. This was told to me first hand. Apparently the Big M management is not satisfied with their side of the deal - in other words, they're changing the rules. The whole thing was bogus to begin with (bogus in that both Ledfords were charged), he plead to conspiracy, "served his time" but that's not enough. Nat Varty & others were told by management to reconsider their choice of drivers when they put Ledford down to drive.

To Niatross Jumps, I have never found Seldon to be cocky in any way. I know Eric appeared to have a chip on his shoulder, but he didn't get that from someone who worked for GM (a union man) for 30 years. I doubt that he got that from his mother, who hated going to the track for fear of seeing an accident involving her son.

My personal opinion was & remains that their biggest mistake was pleading to lessor charges. The state had no positives, no proof that anything was ever used on any horses & would never have made the case.

He isn't getting drives because the Meadowlands has basically "threatened" the trainers so they don't use him. This was told to me first hand. Apparently the Big M management is not satisfied with their side of the deal - in other words, they're changing the rules. The whole thing was bogus to begin with (bogus in that both Ledfords were charged), he plead to conspiracy, "served his time" but that's not enough. Nat Varty & others were told by management to reconsider their choice of drivers when they put Ledford down to drive.

To Niatross Jumps, I have never found Seldon to be cocky in any way. I know Eric appeared to have a chip on his shoulder, but he didn't get that from someone who worked for GM (a union man) for 30 years. I doubt that he got that from his mother, who hated going to the track for fear of seeing an accident involving her son.

My personal opinion was & remains that their biggest mistake was pleading to lessor charges. The state had no positives, no proof that anything was ever used on any horses & would never have made the case.

They are about as innocent of the crimes they were charged with as OJ Simpson was on his charges.By the way, I was told this first hand.

He isn't getting drives because the Meadowlands has basically "threatened" the trainers so they don't use him. This was told to me first hand. Apparently the Big M management is not satisfied with their side of the deal - in other words, they're changing the rules. The whole thing was bogus to begin with (bogus in that both Ledfords were charged), he plead to conspiracy, "served his time" but that's not enough. Nat Varty & others were told by management to reconsider their choice of drivers when they put Ledford down to drive.

To Niatross Jumps, I have never found Seldon to be cocky in any way. I know Eric appeared to have a chip on his shoulder, but he didn't get that from someone who worked for GM (a union man) for 30 years. I doubt that he got that from his mother, who hated going to the track for fear of seeing an accident involving her son.

My personal opinion was & remains that their biggest mistake was pleading to lessor charges. The state had no positives, no proof that anything was ever used on any horses & would never have made the case.

Dolfan,

For the sake of the discussion, let us say that Ledford and the gang decided to fight it out in open court and they were all found innocent ... I dont mean not guilty but innocent. They walk out with a clear victory.

What would stop the Meadowlands from supposedly blacklisting him any way?

Herve Filion was never found guilty of one single thing related to racing and they still have him banned

He isn't getting drives because the Meadowlands has basically "threatened" the trainers so they don't use him. This was told to me first hand. Apparently the Big M management is not satisfied with their side of the deal - in other words, they're changing the rules. The whole thing was bogus to begin with (bogus in that both Ledfords were charged), he plead to conspiracy, "served his time" but that's not enough. Nat Varty & others were told by management to reconsider their choice of drivers when they put Ledford down to drive.

To Niatross Jumps, I have never found Seldon to be cocky in any way. I know Eric appeared to have a chip on his shoulder, but he didn't get that from someone who worked for GM (a union man) for 30 years. I doubt that he got that from his mother, who hated going to the track for fear of seeing an accident involving her son.

My personal opinion was & remains that their biggest mistake was pleading to lessor charges. The state had no positives, no proof that anything was ever used on any horses & would never have made the case.

They found lots of EPO and steroids illegally in the possession of stable employees. That was enough to convict Seldon, who as trainer of record for the stable is responsible. At trial, they also would have had eyewitness testimony that it was Eric who was the actual trainer of the horses, which presumably would have been enough to sustain the conspiracy charge.

PS...I can't say if the arm was put on any trainers or not, but I can say that you would be hard pressed to find many honest trainers here who would be willing to use Eric regardless. If they did, there would be owners leaving their stables by the dozen. After seeing Eric and Seldon stealing the money out of their pockets, believe me, not many people up here want anything to do with the Ledfords.

For the sake of the discussion, let us say that Ledford and the gang decided to fight it out in open court and they were all found innocent ... I dont mean not guilty but innocent. They walk out with a clear victory.

What would stop the Meadowlands from supposedly blacklisting him any way?

Herve Filion was never found guilty of one single thing related to racing and they still have him banned

First, there is no such thing as being found innocent. If a jury comes to a verdict, the defendant is found either guilty or not guilty, there is no verdict of "innocent".

Herve has chosen not to apply for a license in NJ. If he were to apply, and NJ were to license him (admittedly a longshot), how would you suggest the Meadowlands, as a state owned track, would be able to blacklist him. They haven't been able to bar any other licensee, except if they violated an agreement they had signed.

Maybe, just maybe this is a simple situation where someone acts like they are bigger or better than the game and they laugh at you after they steal from you. Fate. karma, the racing gods, or just life in general, when you treat people like he did, things will catch up to you.

First, there is no such thing as being found innocent. If a jury comes to a verdict, the defendant is found either guilty or not guilty, there is no verdict of "innocent".

Herve has chosen not to apply for a license in NJ. If he were to apply, and NJ were to license him (admittedly a longshot), how would you suggest the Meadowlands, as a state owned track, would be able to blacklist him. They haven't been able to bar any other licensee, except if they violated an agreement they had signed.

Mr. Cocheran, forgive me for not knowing that the People's Republic of New Jersey has not adopted an "innocent" verdict. I had believed they had adpoted that to seperate it from a "not guilty" verdict to show the difference between a case not proven and a person not committing the crime.

Call it what you want, Herve is banned. Just because it isnt formally in writting doesnt mean he isnt banned.

The same for a blacklist aand Ledford. Yea the law says that if he has a license, they have to honor it but you know very well, off the record, the Meadowlands has told trainers and owners that life there will be a lot easier if Ledford doesnt drive their horses.

Mr. Cocheran, forgive me for not knowing that the People's Republic of New Jersey has not adopted an "innocent" verdict. I had believed they had adpoted that to seperate it from a "not guilty" verdict to show the difference between a case not proven and a person not committing the crime.

Call it what you want, Herve is banned. Just because it isnt formally in writting doesnt mean he isnt banned.

The same for a blacklist aand Ledford. Yea the law says that if he has a license, they have to honor it but you know very well, off the record, the Meadowlands has told trainers and owners that life there will be a lot easier if Ledford doesnt drive their horses.

That would be the "People's Republic of The United States of America" that has not adopted your "innocent" verdict.

Yea the law says that if he has a license, they have to honor it but you know very well, off the record, the Meadowlands has told trainers and owners that life there will be a lot easier if Ledford doesnt drive their horses.

You,of course, could be right. But I do not think that you are. First, I would THINK that it would be illegal for track mgt to sway an owner or trainers decisions on drivers, and to try toforce a driver out of work this way. I believe this would be collusion, but if I am not right then someone can correct me.

My thinking is that (hopefully) owners and trainers have made individual decisions not to use the guy based on:

A) the negative attention he brought to the sport

B) that they feel he STOLE money from other owners/trainers/drivers when driving horses from his barn/fathers barn.

C) that they have decided that his driving skills became more ordinary when he wasnt driving a juiced up horse.

Momo, there is a post about "karma" on this thread. I suggest you read it.

Paul, how far do you think a conspiracy charge involving his father would have gone? It's more than 2 years already. But we both know how the other feels about this. We need to just be satisfied that we agreed with eachother on another thread about something completely different.

BB, they definitely would have been found "not guilty" but they were guessing (with great legal advice) that this would have blown over & ultimately cost less due to the legal fees & the fact that NJ would have strung this out as long as possible. They were told by counsel that Eric would be able to get licensed in other states (PA & NY), which I disagreed with. But make no mistakes, he has definitely been blacklisted.

Yea the law says that if he has a license, they have to honor it but you know very well, off the record, the Meadowlands has told trainers and owners that life there will be a lot easier if Ledford doesnt drive their horses.

You,of course, could be right. But I do not think that you are. First, I would THINK that it would be illegal for track mgt to sway an owner or trainers decisions on drivers, and to try toforce a driver out of work this way. I believe this would be collusion, but if I am not right then someone can correct me.

My thinking is that (hopefully) owners and trainers have made individual decisions not to use the guy based on:

A) the negative attention he brought to the sport

B) that they feel he STOLE money from other owners/trainers/drivers when driving horses from his barn/fathers barn.

C) that they have decided that his driving skills became more ordinary when he wasnt driving a juiced up horse.

Of course it would be collusion and illegal for track management to sway a trainer or owner into using or not using a driver and of course nobody from track management would dare put it in writing much less verbally suggest it to a trainer or owner.

That said though, the betting world knew what Eric Ledford did and it was an embarrassment to the Meadowlands each and every time Ledford put his ass into a sulky there. The Meadowlands did not want Ledford there by any stretch of the imagination but at the same time by law could not exclude him.

Ledford showed up and then disappeared again. While I would love to believe that harness racing trainers and owners were able to police themselves, we all know that isnt going to completely happen. People did use Ledford the second he came back despite what he did

Do you not think it is possible, if not probable that management indirectly and off the record spoke to third parties who are connected to the trainers and owners and suggested that by not using Ledford, that life would remain easier for them on the backstretch?

What happened to all those posters who claimed that "if a man serves his time he deserves another chance" (see Walter Case as well as Eric Ledford). Eric did his time - there's no disputing that. I guess all those posters were full of .